This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Immigration Policy Must Be Decentralized
Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,
Last month, the United States Supreme Court declined to take up a case involving Arizona’s and Kansas’s attempts to require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. The two states sought SCOTUS review in an attempt to overturn a prohibition imposed by lower federal courts. Had the two states been allowed to impose more stringent citizenship requirements, the effect on the voting population would have likely been small, but the overall legal effect of the court’s decision is significant.
The refusal of the Supreme Court to hear the case yet again sends a message to state and local governments that the federal government shall continue to centrally direct election and immigration law. As noted in The Hill:
“This is a very big deal,” Rick Hasen, a University of California Irvine law professor, wrote on his election law blog. “Kobach had the potential to shift more power away from the federal government in administering elections toward the states.”
Centrally Planning Immigration Policy
The Arizona and Kansas voting restrictions had been efforts to affect national immigration policy via state laws. But, as has been the trend over the past century, the federal government has repeatedly asserted itself as the last word in policymaking in citizenship and immigration matters.
Indeed, the Federal Courts explicitly declared the states powerless to attempt to control immigration within their own borders when Federal Judge Mariana Pfaelzer struck down California’s voter-approved Proposition 187 in 1994 and wrote:
California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits.
Naturally, this decision sent the message nationwide that states should not bother to limit access to taxpayer-funded amenities (with public education being a central issue) because the federal government will simply declare such efforts illegal.
Thus, through these cases, federal courts have made it clear that no state (or anyone other than the feds) can meaningfully prevent participation by non-citizens in political activities such as elections, nor can the states limit the ways in which immigrants can access government benefits, even when those benefits are locally-funded.
The net effect is an imposition of a migrant subsidy scheme across all states regardless of the local economic and demographic realities, while ignoring the fact that residents of certain states bear a greater tax burden in subsidizing migrants.
The Answer Is Not More Government Intervention
At this point, it is important to note that the antidote to government subsidies (i.e., government intervention) is not more intervention. If the federal government insists that the taxpayers subsidize the immigrant population, then the proper response is to simply eliminate the subsidy. This is exactly what voters had attempted to do with Proposition 187 (and Arizona Proposition 200).
This correct approach is to be contrasted with the draconian methods employed by other states which have centered on punishing employers and landlords (and the immigrants themselves, of course) for engaging in private contracts and non-violent market transactions.
Such efforts only expand the size and scope of government, and they ultimately involve federal agents raiding private establishments and combing through lease agreements and payroll documentation to make sure that workers and renters bear an arbitrarily-assigned status as “legal” immigrants.
When states turn to these methods, we end up with the worst of both worlds, since not surprisingly, federal courts have been relatively tolerant of state and local efforts to punish local businesses and employers while at the same time remaining steadfast in opposition to efforts to limit the scope of government programs.
The Answer Is Decentralization and Smaller Government
Thus, while states and local government are given a small space to act around the edges of immigration policy, all regions and states are tethered to a single national policy on citizenship and immigration. However, we can guess that, if they were given greater leeway to do so, states would offer a very diverse array of immigration-related policies.
In research conducted by Huyen Pham and Pham Hoang Van, the authors attempt to measure the legal “climate” for immigrants for all fifty states by evaluating state and local legislative and legal efforts to limit (or encourage) immigrant activity in each state. The authors unfortunately do not distinguish between efforts that restrict private property (i.e., employment restrictions) and efforts that restrict government growth (i.e., limiting health care benefits). In the following chart, we find Pham’s and Van’s rankings:
Source: Immigrant Climate Index from “Measuring the Climate for Immigrants: A State by State Analysis,” by Huyen Pham and Pham Hoang Van
The legislative and legal climates differ broadly, and this suggests that ideology, economics, and demographics produce some areas (i.e., California and Illinois) that tend to favor and subsidize immigration while other areas (i.e., Arizona and Virginia) would thoroughly limit subsidies.
If we took this a step further and gave states and localities the power to determine all eligibility to both state and federal benefits, such measures by themselves (assuming benefits were not transferrable across state lines) would serve to place the burdens of subsidized immigration onto the states that mandate it.
And, of course, there’s nothing to say that the state level is the optimal level of decentralization. As with any truly laissez-faire proposal, the ultimate goal is complete privatization of immigration policy. That is, the ability of immigrants to relocate to a community would be dependent on the dispersed and individual decisions of employers and other property owners who can decide on their own to employ or house migrants in the community. This is, of course, the democracy of the marketplace described by Mises in which individual persons — by making decisions about whom to employ or sell property to — collectively determine who is a member of each community. Any employer who wished to fully staff his operation with so-called illegal immigrants would be legally free to do so, and his decision would be subject to approval or veto by his customers, not by arbitrary government fiat.
But even in the absence of this ideal, movement toward more locally-focused immigration policy gives existing residents greater choice in where to reside and place their property. Without decentralization, the taxpayers (many of whom will want to live in jurisdictions with laissez-faire attitudes toward conducting business with migrants) are powerless to make meaningful choices in this matter without completely uprooting his life and leaving the country.
The Problem with Imposing Top-Down Policy
The goal of laissez-faire immigration policy is to both diminish the availability to taxpayer-funded programs for immigrants (on the way to eliminating these programs overall) while also avoiding anti-private-property regulations that prohibit owners from freely contracting with immigrants in general.
As we have seen, there is no technological or practical barrier to decentralizing this effort immediately. As is so often the case, however, there is significant ideological and legal opposition.
Among those who insist on a single nationwide policy are those who assert that the best way to ensure the protection of property rights (for both property owners and migrants) is to impose it from above.
Unfortunately, we’ve seen this movie before on other issues ranging from eminent domain to drug policy. In each case, however, the more practical, enduring, and least-risky solutions come from decentralization.
Following the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision in 2005, for example, many advocates for free markets condemned the court for not issuing a top-down prohibition on certain types of eminent domain. As Lew Rockwell pointed out, however, Kelo was one of the few cases in which the court was actually correct in deferring to local control. Even when the central government agrees with us, political decentralization remains the prudent choice:
We are … opposed to top-down political control over wide geographic regions, even when they are instituted in the name of liberty.
Hence it would be no victory for your liberty if, for example, the Chinese government assumed jurisdiction over your downtown streets in order to liberate them from zoning ordinances. Zoning violates property rights, but imperialism violates the right of a people to govern themselves. The Chinese government lacks both jurisdiction and moral standing to intervene. What goes for the Chinese government goes for any distant government that presumes control over government closer to home ...
There are several reasons for [this position].
First, under decentralization, jurisdictions must compete for residents and capital, which provides some incentive for greater degrees of freedom, if only because local despotism is neither popular nor productive. If despots insist on ruling anyway, people and capital will find a way to leave. If there is only one will and one actor, you cannot escape ...
This is certainly true in the case of immigration policy. Those states that turn to raiding employers and fining landlords as “solutions” to perceived problems with immigrants will lose their most productive citizens and property owners to states that shy away from such interventionism. Moreover, those states that choose to heavily subsidize immigration will also suffer the loss of many of their taxpayers.
In such a system, would some states still indulge in massive redistribution schemes and other unsustainable public policies? There is no doubt that would occur, but it’s best to limit the damage to a handful of states than to impose the same fate on everyone nationwide.
- 8974 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


"At [any] point, it is important to note that the antidote to government subsidies (i.e., government [counterfeiting] is not more [counterfeiting]."
"... the proper response is to simply eliminate the [introduction of new currency that does not represent existing, and pledged, collateral].
If the collateral pledged is the future productive work of the citizens then this is SLAVERY, not taxation.
Until the 18 trillion dollar representation of the USA's brokenness is replenished, then the USA has no collateral to pledge.
Trump... Donald Trump... Calling Donald Trump...
You have an urgent phonecall, Mr. Trump...
Please pick up the white courtesy phone in the lobby.
Donald Trump...
How is a totally disorganized free for all not decentralized?
The reason we are not correcting the immigration issue is the construction, agriculture and the IT industries. Factories are next. It is all about the labor costs. For instance the entire chicken production of "chicken catchers" in the chicken poultry buildings are almost all illegal laborers, same for the meat packers. From Mexico, Somalia. It is funny that those that want to "stop" illegal immigration are also the states that use it. Arkansas is a large chicken producer, and lots of meat packing plants, same for Kansas.
Ironically the corn farming of the United states and the subsidized corn crop, basically bankrupted about 1,000,000 Mexican corn farmers. They can't compete with corporate corn producers, so they are unemployed by US gov't. subsidies to food conglomerate cartels. Then they stream to the border and come in and displace US citizens by being more desperate for work, and will work for less. Then there is the IT industry and the recent Disney situation of their entire IT group outsourced to H1B visa holders from India and cutting their wages about 50%.
The corporate corrupt conglomeration cartels are the main problem with EVERYTHING in America, They get the money, they get the subsidies, they lay off our families and citizens and import poverty. They all ought to have to die very painfully.
But, but we just gave up our sovereignty to those big corporations when Obama signed the TTP.
Corps uber alles!
...but...but...Free Trade! It creates jobs and makes everyone richer!
What's that? Almost every nation that embraced neoliberalism went into an economic hole and every prosperous modern OECD nation has a strong history of protectionism that enabled domestic industry to develop in the first place?
Lies!
You forgot to mention the drive from the Demoncrats. All those illegals want welfare and they know who gives them welfare, and in return, illegals turn out and vote for demoncrats. Both sides are pimping us out.
36% real unemployment. I'll catch my own chickens and if I do, do my own race crimes. Asshole.
its not about labor costs, its about fake FOREX. Look. Dickhead. You are smarter now than you were 20 years ago. See it. Its all fake.
Fuck you. I didn't do it, so I'm not going to pay for your self hate. For your weakness. Your failure. You push me, you're dead.
Clear? You better be.
Since 1560s no niggers may own any real property in Mexico. FU NAU partners & indigenous mexicans. Nazi and chook gangsters welcome. Clear?
Are We Clear? Lets be clear. Gangsters make money unloading their prisons and mental hospitals into your system. WTFU screws.
Clear? Americans might be upset by being called what they are, so using the word "nigger" carries penalties. A slave is an investment. But a Rockefeller nigger, any goy, can be worked to death. Thats pure profit. Double+ if you insured the punks.
There is only one Corporation. These parasites are the only niggers.
Nail 'em.
The answer is zero immigration.
Just like in nowhere ever on planet Earth.
The Supreme Court is one key high level issue that the states must consider during the Convention of the States. If the states decide that there is benefit to continuing to have a central government, they should seriously consider abolishing the Supreme Court branch and replacing it with a state staffed court to review Federal laws with the power to negate those that violate the Constitution. That was the original intention of the Supreme Court but it has clearly failed to protect the rights of the states.
It should be blatantly fucking obvious that the Constitution does not allow for non U.S. Citizens to vote, or recieve any benefits of citizenship ffs. And stop calling these sons of bitches immigrants. THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS AKA FELONS.......!
As a result, The La Times notes, other cites and counties nationwide stopped cooperating with ICE detainer requests, when a federal judge ruled an Oregon county violated one illegal immigrant’s Fourth Amendment rights by detaining her without probable cause
By this f'd up judges opinion/logic then the NSA is violating the whole worlds other 4th Amendment rights:
"[t]he right of the people/illegal immigrants and all other citizens of the world, to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly ...
All the more reason to lament abe Lincoln's success in stopping the dissolution of the states.
A half dozen states would have consolidated along the southern border and today there might be about a dozen illegal aliens in this country instead of 20,000,000.
When we send our leaders to Washington, we're not sending our best. We're not sending you...we're not sending you...We're sending people who never take care of our problems.
Leaders?
'We' don't send anyone to Washington.....who has not been previously vetted by the NWO and their globalist minions. If by chance some legit liberty-loving American citizen with a strong independent streak manages to get their name on a ballot somewehere.....well, that's what electronic voting is for.
Maybe Obama can roll out the 'Affirmtively Furthering Fair Voting Act' whereby anyone on the globe can vote in U.S. elections as long as they are not white......
You know of course the president can NOT:
Make laws.
Declare war.
Decide how federal money will be spent.
Interpret laws.
Choose Cabinet members or Supreme Court Justices without Senate approval.
Get rid of pop up ads, pop videos and pop up requests for email address on Zero Hedge.
shhh....you'll disturb the MSM myth that the POTUS is, "the most powerful manin the world", otherwise known as the "Superman" complex.
Is it a surprising correlation that the two brokest states are the two most immigrant friendly?
More proof that the Austrians are utterly incoherent on immigration, not that any more was needed.
Horse tranquilizer incoherent.
"Butt-naked. Ill. Sherms. Dust. PCP. Primos. P-Dog"
Immigration is the tool being used to dilute and disenfranchise the old majority, mainly Caucasians.
Homosexuality is the tool being used to eradicate the religion that had the capability to possibly prevent the totalitarian transition, mainly Christians.
Off shoring the production is the tool to make otherwise self sufficient Americans dependent on Government thus being unable to provide too much resistance.
The young, being the most radical is therefore the reason for the chains of education debt wrapped around them while swallowing the propaganda that a higher education will result in better jobs. Those jobs were shipped out years ago and whatever is left will go to H1B immigrants.
Nothing in the relic Constitution prohibits the states from protecting themselves if the national government doesn't fulfill their end of the bargain. This was why each state had a Constitutional regulated militia. This is why the states were allowed to coin money.
We're post constitution now and there is likely no going back. The old saying, if you don't use it you lose it holds true here. If an attempt is made to break the chains of bondage, the blood will run deep and will make the first civil war look like a walk in the park.
It will still be a walk in the park but the park is much more dangerous than it used to be. It will happen. It can't be avoided we have gone too far past the point of no return. I'm just getting to old to participate.
If I see you sitting alone on the porch in your wheelchair I promise to wheel you out into the unfolding chaos so you may participate......
Solution to invaders is trivially simple:
put a bounty on their heads, dead or alive.
Free-enterprise will clean it up within just a few months.
When Uncle Sugar finally gets serious about securing the Mexican border, it'll be to keep Americans from escaping.
I disagree with the premise of this article. The reason there are so many problems is specifically BECAUSE the damn immigration policy is all over the map. Some states have sanctuary cities. Some don't, but cities within them do. Some sanctuary policies only allow for people under imminent threat of bodily harm to come to the US. Others allow anyone to come and don't do shit to stop them.
One of the few things the federal government of any country is responsible for is ensuring that only those people legally allowed to be in the country are, in fact here. You're either a citizen, a permanent resident or are here with a valid passport and, if required, a proper visa. Those are the ONLY people that should be in the damn country at any time.
The immigration system is in the state it's in because the Red Team and the Blue Team want it that way. The Red Team wants low cost labor for all their supporters and the Blue Team sees an endless supply of votes by allowing illegal aliens to come and, eventually, be granted amnesty. These assholes give lip service to security and spy on us 24/7 because of the terrorist boogeymen ready to come get us. My question to them is simple. If the terrosit boogeymen are so damn scary, why the fuck won't you secure the border to make sure said boogeyment can't get in? Simple answer is that there either are no boogeymen or TPTB don't care if they come in here and chop some heads or detonate some dirty bombs.
Leaving immigration policy up to individual states, cities or, hell, the way it's going, individual neighborhoods is just the latest in a string of really bad ideas on immigration. Make the fucking federal government do its job, one of the only fucking jobs the constitution specifies it has!
Afroyim v. Rusk (1967 ) was the case that destroyed all settled law about citizenship, immigration, passports, deportation, and voting. Everything started unraveling after that, because instead of adhering to procedure it came down to agitation, accusations, special interests, etc., to the point where we now have a lawless free for all. There is no baseline -- it's gone. There can be no agreement among various groups because the foundational laws are gone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk
Whom signed NAFTA into law?
Whom ratified the Constitution? Whom rejected the Kentucky Resolution? Suckas, that's whom.
Amen. Decentralize immigration policy, and the other twelve Doorways to Centralization that, if left open, doom any nation to increasingly centralized government over time. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B0GACAQ
Message to California and Ill-noise:"If you like your Mezcuns, you can keep your Mezcuns". But the rest of us had rather they get the hell out. Every evening my local six o'clock news is nothing but crime story after crime story of Mezcuns and Haitians {Florida} raping, kidnapping, drunk driving fatalities {the Mezcuns must have a drunk driving Olympic team, and they always win the gold}, dog or roster fighting rings, robberies, CHILD MOLESTATION, on and on. Where do they find the time to commit all of these crimes? ARE THEY JUST COMMITTING THE CRIMES AMERICANS WON'T COMMIT?
Legal or illegal, it is not "immigration;" it is invasion.
And, it is a Trojan Horse.
Let's call it what it is.
And you expectg WHAT with a Supreme Court with 3 Jews on it?!?
"Immigration Policy Must Be Decentralized"
NO!, "centralization,' tyranny, needs to be ended.
Immigration is not what is ailing the American country. It is the plunder, treason and tyranny of the American country occupying DC US, the grifting banksters, and both of their masters, Zion.
Immigration is a propaganda lighting rod of power (division) to keep the American people looking the wrong way for the source of our diminished economic opportunities. No, you don't have to like immigrants, socialize with them, permit your daughter to marry one, or even hire any, but they are NOT the enemy.
Ask yourself these:
1) Could the same folks that bomb, murder, and maim millions overseas close the border if they wanted too?
2) Will that gun and tazer toting thug and bandit behind you tomorrow be an "illegal" immigrant, or a born and raised, apple pie swilling and flag waving treasonous "American?"
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..
I'm teaching my Confederate flag to shoot and taze people. It's slow going.
Decentralization was lost at Appomattox, although apparently we are going to fight that war again sometime in the near future.